Translation Notes and Foreign Words Please
Charles Shrio Inouye was on campus yesterday to talk about translating Japanese, and he was interesting, but it was the conversation that followed during the Q&A portion that I've continued to think about.
A question was raised regarding how to know when to use a Japanese word in an English translation and when it's better to give an English equivalent or brief explanation. A German translator in the audience gave the example of schadenfreude, which is, of course the feeling of pleasure we feel at someone else's pain. Some translators will just use the German word schadenfreude, and some translators will give only the explanatory phrase. Still others will do what I just did, which is to use the word once, follow it with a gloss, and then continue to use it with the understanding that after explaining it, the reader will surely be able to recall the meaning of this new word: schadenfreude.
What surprised me was that the Japanese translator and one of his colleagues both rejected the idea of using the original word alone or along with the gloss, opting instead to find an English explanation. Their reasoning was that 1) glosses, footnotes, and other such breaks interrupt the flow of reading and 2) the use of foreign words tends to make the text exotic in ways that it shouldn't be. In other words, they think that when people read an English translation, they want to have an experience similar to that enjoyed by people who can read the original: one free of notes and new vocabulary.
I don't see how keeping translation notes out of a translation could possibly be better than including them. If all you have is a completely English translation, then you're relying on the translator's ability to transform the meaning of a sentence in one language into an equivalent sentence in your own language. What if the translator doesn't understand the original sentence perfectly? What if the original is open to interpretation? What if the original makes allusions that would be clear to native readers, but are unknown to foreign readers? Without notes you lose out on the possibility of seeing some of the original author's intention because he's been overtaken by the translator.
The refusal to use foreign words is equally baffling. How can you say that using the word genkan (the entrance to a Japanese-style home with a step in front of which shoes are left behind) makes a text exotic in ways that having a main character named Takeshi does not? Call the man Tim if you want to complete the illusion of creating an English version that is in all ways similar in reception to the original. And move him out of Tokyo and into Toledo while you're at it.
Using foreign words in texts is one of the ways in which those words enter the vocabulary of other countries. A pet peeve of mine is that movies and anime tend to translate itadakimasu when spoken before a meal. It's usually rendered as some kind of silly prayer or "let's eat!", but it always comes across as unnatural, because it's a single word used to begin a meal and should be spoken by everyone, and outside of "GRACE!" which is irreverent and therefore not practical for all cases, English doesn't have an equivalent and it's awkward to try to find one. However, if translators would just trust their audiences with the word itadakimasu on its own, I don't see why it wouldn't become as commonplace and understandable as the similar-in-function bon appetite that we've borrowed successfully from the French.
Just some thoughts.
5 comments:
I could not agree more, your analogy with Takeshi/Tim is funny and memorable, though when i next use it I will use 'Bob'.
As a translator i have been thinking a lot lately about the use of singlular and plural which are rarely distinguished in Japanese but the context determines it, e.g. "that garage repairs bycycles" (not bicycle) but when i cited the common error of j to E translators of not using the plural often enough, the patent Bucho of this famous company trotted out "I was taught that the default was singular", meaning use unless obliged to do otherwise.I guess the more fundamental question is "Should Japanese native speakers be translating into English anyway ?"
The best translations of philosophy texts are the ones where half the page is footnotes explaining the words.
I think it is asinine to approach translation from the standpoint that one need completely estrange the text from its native tongue. IT's just a fucking stupid thing to do. One cannot translate Heidegger by changing everything to English and maintain notions Heidegger communicates via his writing. It is simply not possible.
When I translate Latin I keep the words in their original order and use arrows to indicate which words go together. To me? This is the only sensible way of translating latin; it is the only way to stay true to the source. Ideally one reading Medieval Philosophy will read the text in Latin, but this is not always possible.
So to those who have not learned the language we have, I think, a responsibility to accurately convey the text to the reader and not skew it by filtering the text through our own ideas of what the author meant. We need to keep the text as accurate as possible when translating. This requires that we maintain word order, original words, and footnote the shit out of the text.
It may be the case that philosophy translates differently from children's stories, and i'll happily accept this, but I think that the spirit of translation philosophy maintains (stay as true to the source as possible) is a spirit which behooves the act of translation.
The goal is to read what Heidegger wrote not what the translator thinks Heidegger meant. I think that notion is applicable in all ways.
I think there is a lot of context that needs to be taken into account here.
If you are translating such that the reader needs to understand what the author is trying to say, and this material is expected to be studied, and read multiple times to properly take it all in, then a stay as true to the original as possible with footnotes and the like.
If you are translating material that is meant to be enjoyed as entertainment or understood quickly and move on, then it should most likely be translated to the reader's native language as smoothly as possible with as little explanation as possible, to make the material feel seamless.
When reading a novel, I don't like to take the time to go back and read something because of a minor blip of information I was supposed to remember. Material like this should probably be translated as if you were translating for two people in the room on the fly. It is frustrating to have to remind people what certain terms mean, if they didn't catch it the first time in passing.
Your example of itadakimasu should probably be left as it is for the purposes of anime, mainly because of the audience it is targeting. Most fans of anime take it upon themselves to understand more of Japanese culture than your average person. Forgive me for not knowing any, but were you to translate some higher Japanese literature (ie a Shakespeare, Hemingway, or Steinbeck of the Japanese culture) it would be better to translate a term such as this into something more like the culture of the target audience. The key here being to make the message of book hit closer to home.
"material that is meant to be enjoyed as entertainment or understood quickly and move on"
That sort of thing may not exist.
Certainly if translating a cooking recipie from Japanese moon speak to English we can ignore word order and other such particulars and simply take the Japanese version of "add one egg" and translate it to English.
But as a student of the liberal arts I've been taught that everything has depth to it. Comic books, movies, anime, novels, and various other types of media contain messages, themes, and ideas into which one may delve.
When an individual translates a work that individual does not know how readers will use it. Will the viewer watch the English version of Evangelion once and never think about it again? Will the viewer spend hours rewatching Evangelion in an effort to extract as many themes and ideas as possible? The translator has no freaking idea.
Since my predilection is for delving into material to needless levels I favor literal translations, footnotes, and as much accurate information on the original as I can find.
Sure, we can translate things for a non-academic audience and academics can be left to fend for themselves with regard to obtaining accurate, footnoted translations. But I do not think that playing to the lowest common denominator necessarily behooves humanity as a whole.
Nuance is not bad. Depth is not bad. An accurate portrayal of ideas is not bad. Providing three paragraph long footnotes of particular words in translations? That can only help society as a whole by conveying the complications and depth involved in the translating process.
Anything else is just "If English was good enough for Jesus then it's good enough for me."
I disagree with your premise. There are tons of works and media that exist purely for entertainment, with no deeper meaning implied by the author. Unless you think that fan fiction, Star Wars novels, or D&D fiction hold great truths that we must glean to better understand our society and lives as a whole? These authors don't kid themselves into thinking they are writing the next great novel.
I quote John Grisham, "I can assure you I don't take myself serious enough to think I'm writing literary fiction and stuff that's going to be remembered in 50 years. I'm not going to be here in 50 years; I don't care if I'm remembered or not. It's pure entertainment."
This is a guy with reputable credentials as a writer, and many of his works have been adapted to film. This is the kind of media, I am talking about, where a smooth telling of the story is more important than word for word translations.
Post a Comment